Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/No. 6 Commando

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No. 6 Commando

[edit]
Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...I believe that it meets the A class criteria (and it's about time that ACR has an army unit to review. Joking, of course!) Seriously though, any help and suggestions greatly appreciated. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments This article is in very good shape, but needs a bit more work:
    • Some of the article is written in the passive voice and could be changed to active voice and some of the prose is a bit wordy. I've made some changes to the lead, but more can be done (for instance, "the British prime minister Winston Churchill, realising the need for the British to maintain some form of offensive action in the war, directed his chief of staff, General Hastings Ismay, to begin organising a force of units capable of carrying out raiding operations along the coast of German-occupied Europe" could become "the British prime minister Winston Churchill realised the need for Britain to maintain some form of offensive action and directed his chief of staff, General Hastings Ismay, to begin organising a force which could conduct raids along the coast of German-occupied Europe."
    • Was all of No. 6 Commando to participate in Operation Myrmidion? This is a bit unclear at present.
      • I have added some more info on this. I believe it was the entire unit. Saunders is a bit vague on the details, however Kenneth Macksey indicates on p. 109 of Commando: Hit and run combat in World War II that the force would consist of 3,000 infantry from 1 and 6 Commandos plus one and a half Royal Marine battalions, an armoured regiment and a motor battalion. Unfortunately I only have snippet view of the source on Google books, but here is the link:[1] AustralianRupert (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Were the US Army rangers really organised into 'troops' for Operation Torch? All accounts of the rangers I've read (which don't include coverage of their part in this operation) refer to platoons and companies.
      • You could well be right on this one, however, the source I used (Hilary St. George Saunders, p. 111) uses the term "troops" (the exact quote is "four Troops of Rangers who were to be their comrades in arms"). I suspect that Saunders may have just unconsciously filled in a gap in his knowledge (i.e. he just assumed that they were organised the same way the British commandos were). Sorry, this isn't really addressing the issue, but I'm not sure how to get around this. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The US Army official history and Rick Atkinson's book An Army at Dawn identify only the 1st Ranger Battalion as being involved in Operation Torch, though it landed from different ships than the HMT Awatea. Rick Atkinson writes that the ranger battalion was 500 strong and was organised into six companies (pp. 79–80). Taking all that into account, I think that you can safely refer to either 'hundreds' of rangers or just US Army rangers. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a few single sentences and short paras out on their own which could be combined with other paras
    • It should be possible to source maps of North Africa and Normandy from the US Army official histories and these would be helpful in illustrating the article given that this unit traveled around a lot (let me know if you can't find the one on North Africa online; I have it on CD).
      • I have added one map in now that shows where No. 6 Cdo went ashore on 8 November 1942. I'm not really sure if I've tagged it correctly when I uploaded it to Commons. Would you mind taking a look at the description page on Commons and see if you agree with the licencing etc.? AustralianRupert (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term "unit's integrity" might need to be explained as this use of 'integrity' is a bit of a technical term
    • Is it correct to say that the commandos "were forced to take up defensive duties" in Normandy? - 'directed', 'ordered' or 'required' might be more appropriate than 'forced' unless the commandos strongly objected to this deployment
    • 'Far East' is obsolete and a bit vague - I presume that the brigade was to be sent to India for operations in Burma and later Malaya
    • Do we know which part of Germany this commando conducted occupation duties or anything about how this went? - at present the last six months of the unit's short history is covered only in a sentence. Nick-D (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My comments are now addressed and I've given the article a further copy edit, and I'm very happy to support this A class nomination. I would suggest, however, that the article's prose be revised to reduce the number of times the term 'they' is used; its often difficult to determine whether this is referring to the men on No. 6 Commando or the units of the 1st Commando Brigade. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a few minor points only:
    • No dab links, external links check out, images all have alt text and citation checker reveals no errors (no action required);
    • I have tweaked a few things, please confirm you're happy with the changes;
    • The following few sentences in the 'Operation Torch' section seems clunky to me: "The voyage took approximately three weeks and at 22.15 on 7 November 1942, wearing American uniforms and carrying American weapons in an attempt to placate the Vichy French defenders,[24] No. 6 Commando took to their landing craft.[25] They were to take part in the landings in Algiers harbour." Maybe reword?
    • In the fourth para in the 'Further operations in North Africa' section you use the phrase 'costly attacks' twice in two sentences, it was getting late and I couldn't think how to reword, perhaps you might have more luck; and
    • You may want to read over it one more time in full, as they are a few places where you could probably condense your prose (some sentences are a little wordy).

Anyway that's it from me. Overall this is a well written and well cited article on an important unit. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

Comments

  • Just a few comments on the Battle Honours section, could they be put into some sort of chronological order?
  • Battle Honours of the British Empire and Commonwealth Land Forces 1662-1991 by Alexander Rodger does not note the Commando Association being issued 'North-West Europe 1944'. Rodger does state, however, that the Commando Association was issued the battle honour 'North-West Europe 1944-1945'. (Rodger, p. 264)
  • North Africa 1941–43; Rodger notes that the Commando Association was awarded the battle honour North Africa 1942-43 (p.298) The award North Africa 1941-43 was not awarded to any commando units. The North Africa 1941 honour was awarded to the 7th Cavalry (Commando) Regiment. However this seems to be at odds with the Commandos battle honour flag (perhaps an imagine that could be added to the article?)
    • As per above another user added the battle honours so I can't confirm what the Moreman source says. As you state the image you have provided does have "North Africa 1941-43", so I'm not sure what to do with this one. One of sources that I do have, Charles Messenger's work The Middle East Commandos p. 131, says the battle honour is "North Africa 1941-43" so based on that I would prefer to leave it as it is. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per the below comment, the two sources are at odds with one another in this regard, so i wouldnt worry too much about it; at any rate the colours support what the current source states so i have no issue with this. In regards to the imagine, your right that is something that would have to be looked at and at the moment could hold up progress so no worries.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normandy Landings; Rodger notes that this award is called Normandy Landing (no s on the end) (P. 240)

Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review. The battle honours were added by another user and I don't have access to the source they have used. I've tweaked them per the image you have provided, however. I would be wary of adding the image to the article because I wouldn't know how to licence it appropriately, and I'm not sure if it would be in the public domain. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Just happen to have Moreman open in front of me.
  • North-West Europe is given as North-West Europe 1942, 1944, 1945
  • North Africa as North Africa 1941/43
  • Normandy Landings with the S

I would go with the CVA website as they are their colours. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jim. Thanks for that. I'm inclined to agree with you. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skinny87's Comments

The only thing I have at the moment is that the unit's actions briefly linked up with 3rd Battalion of the Parachute Regiment in North Africa at Bone. The article I wrote on the paras in North Africa, British airborne operations in North Africa, has a few sentences on how Bone was defended by the paras and the commandos, as well as a picture of Bone airfield shortly after being captured. Don't know if you want to use any of the info, or the picture especially to break up the text a little. Skinny87 (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and another minor thing: the photo in the infobox. Is it connected at all to the Commando? The caption identifies the troops as from the Devonshire Regiment, I think. Is there a more specific one that can be used? Skinny87 (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the image of Bone airfield. To be honest, I'm struggling to find any images that specifically identify this unit. The IWM online collection only came up with one (a unit photo from Jan 1945 at Hove cricket ground, but it wouldn't display). I've found one in a book, which I've scanned and uploaded. The book was published in 1996 but attributes the source of the photo as the IWM, with a date of April 1942. Thus I've licenced it as PD-BritishGovt. To be honest, I'm not sure if this is acceptable. Can someone who is has a bit of Commons knowledge take a look at the image that is now in the infobox and see if I've licenced it appropriately? I have a bad feeling that I've commited some heinous copyright breach. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contact User: Moonriddengirl, she's a copyright supremo and I'm sure she can direct you well. To my admittedly untrained eye, what5 you've done seems okay. Skinny87 (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, I've done this. I'll let you know the response. In the meantime, I've found another image which I'm certain has been tagged correctly and I've added this to the article now too. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/No._6_Commando&oldid=369829450"